Evaluation system (Junior College)

Membership & Evaluation Fees

General Principles of Institutional Evaluation and Accreditation (Junior Colleges)

About these Principles

Since April 1, 2004, for the purpose of improving the quality and education and research level, all universities and colleges, junior colleges, and other institutions of higher education have been required, under Article 109-2 of the School Education Law, to undergo comprehensive evaluations every certain period specified by Cabinet Order (within 7 years) conducted by evaluation bodies (hereinafter referred to as “Certified Evaluation and Accrediting Agencies”) certified by the Minister of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan with regard to the state of education and research, organizational management, facilities and equipment of the evaluated institutions.

These principles are intended to describe the basic content of comprehensive evaluations of junior college education and research activities conducted by the Japan Institution for Higher Education Evaluation (hereinafter referred to as “JIHEE”).

JIHEE conducts evaluations for the purpose of contributing to the development of Japanese higher education by supporting the autonomous improvement of quality and overall enhancement of the educational and research activities of junior colleges.

These principles contain information regarding the fundamental policies and content of evaluation of institutional accreditation. JIHEE evaluations are implemented on the basis of the “Evaluation Standards(Junior Colleges)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Evaluation Standards”). In addition to these principles, JIHEE also publishes the “Handbook for Evaluation and Accreditation(Junior Colleges)” for institutions preparing to create “Self-Inspection and Evaluation Report” for submission to JIHEE, and the “Handbook for Evaluators(Junior Colleges)”.

JIHEE endeavors to develop the most appropriate evaluation system by conducting reviews of the evaluation methods and Evaluation Standards, etc., based upon the opinions received from the parties related to the institution undergoing evaluation, examiners involved in evaluation-related activities, and other related parties.

1. Evaluation Objectives

The evaluations conducted by JIHEE at the behest of the institutions of higher education are implemented in accordance with the following objectives for the purpose of contributing to the further development of the junior colleges of Japan.

(1) To evaluate the overall situation of institutions of higher education, including educational and research activities, on the basis of the Evaluation Standards developed by JIHEE taking into consideration the analysis of results of Self-Inspection and Evaluation, to verify the Self-Inspection and Evaluation and to support the institutions’ efforts to strengthen quality assurance on their own initiative.

(2) To provide support that enables institutions of higher education to attain the backing of the general public through appropriate disclosure of their educational and research activities.

(3) To assist and promote the autonomous development of educational and research activities on the strength of each institution’s unique character and distinctive quality through evaluation that considers the institution’s individuality and different features.

2. Object of Evaluation

Fully accredited junior colleges and other institutions.

3. Fundamental Principles of Evaluation

JIHEE conducts evaluations on the basis of the following fundamental policies.

(1) Evaluation on the basis of Evaluation Standards provided for by JIHEE
This evaluation will focus on the determination of whether the educational and research activities of each institution of higher education satisfy the Evaluation Standards provided for by JIHEE.

(2) Evaluation focused on the status of educational activities
This evaluation will focus on the overall state of educational activities, giving consideration to the degree of social expectations regarding the educational activities of institutions of higher education and the institution’s obligation of accountability

(3) Evaluation based on consideration of the character and special features of each institution
This evaluation will discard with standardized evaluative practices, and will be implemented placing appropriate importance on the unique qualities of each institution (educational philosophies, fundamental principles, mission and objectives) in order to conduct evaluations that give sufficient consideration to the character and special features of each institution.

(4) Evaluation that contributes to the improvement and enhancement of each junior colleges
JIHEE considers evaluation of institutions of higher education to be indispensable to the improvement of the educational and research activities of junior colleges and vital to managerial reform, and places great importance on the process and results of evaluation and their interaction and connection with independent reform and improvement.

(5) Evaluation on the basis of Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports
Evaluations by JIHEE are conducted on the basis of the content of the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports (including all data and additional documentation submitted in support of the content of Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports) prepared by each institution in accordance with the “Handbook for Evaluation and Accreditation (Junior Colleges).”

(6) Evaluation based on peer reviews
In order to appropriately evaluate the complex educational and research activities of institutions of higher education, the evaluations conducted by JIHEE are based mainly on the peer reviews of the faculty and staff of each institution. Furthermore, knowledgeable individuals unaffiliated with the institution undergoing evaluation who have insight into the educational and research activities of institutions are appointed as members of the Committee for Evaluation(Junior Colleges) (herein referred to as the “Committee for Evaluation”) to assure objectivity and social appropriateness in the system of evaluation.

(7) Qualitative assessment-oriented evaluation
From the perspective of the educational and research quality improvement orientation of these evaluations, the JIHEE conducts evaluations that place importance not only on quantitative indices, but also on qualitative assessment of the content of educational and research activities.

(8) Communication-oriented evaluation
This evaluation places great importance on the communication between evaluated institutions and this evaluative body. JIHEE endeavors to avoid making and publishing unidirectional judgments. In particular, the JIHEE holds explanatory meetings and provides 2 opportunities for the Liaison Officer requesting evaluation to appeal.

(9) Developing a highly transparent and reliable evaluation system
JIHEE conducts highly transparent and open evaluations through the establishment of a system in which institutions can appeal and through broad disclosure of the process, methods and results of evaluations. Furthermore, JIHEE seeks to constantly improve the evaluation system through the establishment of a structure that incorporates opinions regarding the evaluations conducted by JIHEE collected from institutions of higher education and society at large through questionnaires participated in by each institution, and by incorporating opinions regarding the evaluation system presented of those who have undergone external or other evaluation.

4. System of Implementation of Evaluation

(1) System of Implementation of Evaluation

Evaluation Teams formed by the Committee for Evaluation and consisting of Evaluators gathered from among affiliates of national, public and private junior colleges and individuals knowledgeable in various fields, such as sociology, economics, and culture, are established to conduct actual evaluations. Evaluators are selected from among registered affiliates of a wide range of junior colleges. The constituents of each Evaluation Team are determined taking into consideration the diversity of the educational and research fields and localities of the institution undergoing evaluation. In addition, although teams generally consist of 4 members, the size of the team can vary depending on the scale and departmental structure of an institution.

The Committee for Evaluation consists of approximately 10 members who are selected by the Board of Directors of the JIHEE on the basis of recommendations solicited from national, municipal and private institutions of higher education, academic societies and economic organizations. 7 members are selected from candidates from national, municipal and private institutions of higher education and 3 from academic societies and economic organizations. However, Evaluators who are directly affiliated with the following national, municipal and private institutions of higher education are not permitted to participate in the evaluations of these institutions.

【The scope of institutional affiliation of Evaluators and Committee for Evaluation members】

Graduates of the institution to be evaluated

Evaluators currently (or planning to be) employed full-time or concurrently by, or who were formerly employed within the past 5 years by the institution to be evaluated

Evaluators currently (or planning to be) executives, or who were within the past 5 years formerly executives of the institution to be evaluated

Evaluators currently (or planning to be) affiliated, or who were within the past 5 years formerly affiliated with an organization examining important matters related to the education, research activities or management of the institution to be evaluated

Affiliates of local or neighboring competitor institutions

Any other individual deemed inappropriate by the JIHEE

(2) Evaluator Training

To ensure that the evaluations conducted by the JIHEE are as effective as possible, it is necessary to implement highly reliable evaluations based on objective perspectives and professional judgments. To this end, the JIHEE provides sufficient training regarding the objectives, content and methods of evaluation to ensure that Evaluators all operate from a common base of understanding and that the evaluation process is fair, appropriate and efficient.

【Methods of Evaluator Training】

At the outset of Evaluator training, JIHEE explains its evaluation system, including the purpose of third-party evaluation, General Principles of Institutional Evaluation and Accreditation (Junior Colleges), Evaluation Standards, document screening, On-site Inspection, important points regarding how to write the Inspection Report, etc. This is followed by presentations from those who have experienced the process of evaluation and a question & answer session. Evaluators are divided into groups for implementation of workshops on document inspection, On-site Inspection, and writing the Inspection Report intended to make the Evaluator pool homogeneous. Training is concluded with a comprehensive Q & A session and exchange of opinions.

5. Implementation Methods, etc., of Evaluation

(1) Details of Evaluation Standards

1. The Evaluation Standards consist of 4 “standards” designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the educational activities of institutions of higher education. The details of these Evaluation Standards include a minimum of basic and common categories with the focus on education, providing regulations for each “standard” that must be met by each institution.

2. Each “standard” is established with “perspectives of evaluation” that take into account the state of observance of the School Education Law and the University Establishment Standards.

3. In addition to these 4 standards, each institution is required to establish its own unique “standard,” “standards” and “perspectives of evaluation” with regard to the areas on which importance is placed as representing the institution’s mission and goals as well as its individuality and distinctive quality.

(2) The Evaluation Process

The evaluation process can be generally described as follows.

1. Holding of explanatory meetings for describing the process of Self-Inspection and Evaluation to institutions undergoing evaluation

JIHEE hosts explanatory meetings for the Liaison Officer for each of the institutions that apply for JIHEE evaluation, in order to explain the evaluation system, the method of evaluation and how to create the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports.

Institutions intending to undergo evaluation will implement Self-Inspection and Evaluation and prepare the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports based on the “Handbook for Evaluation and Accreditation (Universities)” provided separately by JIHEE.
When preparing the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports, the institution will analyze the educational activities of departments and graduate school research divisions as necessary in line with the “perspectives of evaluation” for each of the “standards” based on the School Education Law and the Junior College Establishment Standards and judge for itself whether or not the standards are “satisfied” or “unsatisfied” based on the evaluation results. With regard to this “self-judgment,” it is necessary to briefly describe the “reasons for self-judgment” (explanation of facts and self-evaluation) along with the relevant evidence. In addition to the “perspectives of evaluation” set up by JIHEE, the institution may establish its own perspectives of evaluation for each of the “standards” and include their description when applicable to the situation and objectives. Next, the institution is required to briefly describe the “self-evaluation” for each “standard” taking into account the results of overall judgment of the “standards.” However, “self-judgment” for each “standard” is not required.

The “Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports” must be prepared in accordance with the “Handbook for Evaluation and Accreditation (Junior Colleges)”

3. JIHEE Evaluations

(i) In accordance with the judgment standards set forth separately, JIHEE makes the following evaluations and judgments, based on the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports submitted by the evaluated institutions.

・ Evaluation is made from the viewpoint of whether the standards are “satisfied” or “unsatisfied” for each perspective for evaluation based on the “perspectives of evaluation”.

・ Evaluation is made from the viewpoint of whether the standards are “satisfied”, “almost satisfied” or “unsatisfied” for each standard based on the evaluations of the “perspectives of evaluation”.

・ Evaluation is made from the comprehensive viewpoint of whether the “Evaluation Standards” are satisfied or not and the institution is judged as “suitable for accreditation,” “deferral” or “not suitable for accreditation.”
If the institution satisfies all of the four “standards”, it is judged to be “suitable for accreditation.”
If there is more than one unsatisfied “standard” out of the four “standards,” the institution in question is judged as “not suitable for accreditation” or “deferral” in accordance with the judgment standards set forth separately.

・ If it is determined by the Committee for Evaluation that an institution has intentionally acted in violation of social norms and ethics by making false reports or covering up the facts when preparing the “Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports” or undergoing the process of On-site Inspection and JIHEE evaluation, it will be judged as “not suitable for accreditation.”

(ii) If an institution judged “deferral” is determined to have satisfied the “standards” as a result of re-evaluation set forth separately, it will be judged as “suitable for accreditation.” If it has not applied for re-evaluation within the deferral period specified by the Committee for Evaluation, it will be treated as “not suitable for accreditation”

(iii) JIHEE also conducts an overall evaluation of the institution from the viewpoint of the obligation of accountability to society.

(iv) In addition, JIHEE provides comments on the contents of the institution’s own unique “standards” as set forth in “5-(1)-(3)” above.

(3) Evaluation Method

Evaluations are conducted through a process of document screening and On-site Inspection. Document screening includes an analysis of the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports (including the documentation and data submitted in support of the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Report) created and submitted by evaluated institutions in accordance with the “Handbook for Evaluation and Accreditation (Junior Colleges)” provided separately. On-site Inspections are conducted on the basis of the separately provided “Handbook for Evaluators(Junior Colleges)” mainly to verify the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports and confirm compliance with the School Education Law and the Junior College Establishment Standards, as well as to conduct investigations focusing on the problems and superior features pointed out in the process of document screening.

(4) Appeals

While evaluation results are expected to be used for the future improvement of the educational activities of evaluated institutions, they are also widely publicized to society at large, making it necessary to assure transparency of process, as well as accuracy of the results of evaluation.

Furthermore, since great importance is placed on communication with the institutions undergoing evaluation, JIHEE provides the institutions with 2 opportunities to appeal regarding the evaluation. The first opportunity gives the institution the chance to respond to the draft of the Inspection Report submitted by the Evaluation Team. The second opportunity is provided prior to the finalization of evaluation results, when a second draft of the evaluation results of the Committee for Evaluation is provided to the institution. A review is conducted of all appeals submitted.

However, in the case of the submission of appeals regarding drafts of the Evaluation Report recommending “deferral” or “unsuitable for accreditation,” in order to provide even greater objectivity to the process of consideration of the appeals submitted, the Committee for Evaluation shall establish an Subcommittee for Appeals(Junior Colleges) to examine the appeals prior to the finalization of findings of the Committee for Evaluation.

(5) Procedures for Amending Evaluation Standards, etc.

JIHEE endeavors to build a system of evaluation that most appropriately assesses the diverse activities of junior colleges by making improvements as necessary to the Evaluation Standards, etc., giving due consideration to the opinions of institutions that have undergone evaluation, the Evaluators that have been involved in the evaluation process, and other related parties as well as the results of institutional evaluation-related surveys and research conducted by JIHEE itself.

When amending Evaluation Standards and methods, the opinions of member institutions and comments from the public are presented beforehand to ensure fairness and transparency of process.

6. Basic Schedule for Evaluations

Collecting applications for evaluation from institutions of higher education.

Explanation meeting for junior college Liaison Officer to explain how to create Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports and the certified evaluation and accreditation schedule.

Institutions seeking evaluation create and submit junior college Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports in accordance with the JIHEE “Handbook for Evaluation and Accreditation (Junior Colleges)”.

Evaluation Teams conduct On-site Inspection based on the results of document screening.

Evaluation Teams prepare and submit to JIHEE a draft of the Inspection Report based on the results of document screening and On-site Inspection.

JIHEE notifies institutions undergoing evaluation of the draft of the Inspection Report. Institutions undergoing evaluation are given the opportunity to appeal regarding the draft.

The Committee for Evaluation considers the content of the Inspection Report and the appeals submitted by institutions undergoing evaluation, and when necessary, conducts hearings with Evaluation Team leaders and personnel of the institution to verify facts for the preparation of a draft of Evaluation Results.

JIHEE submits a second draft of Evaluation Results prior to finalization. Institutions undergoing evaluation are given a final opportunity to appeal regarding the draft of Evaluation Results.

The Committee for Evaluation finalizes Evaluation Results and creates the Evaluation Report. If appeals have been submitted with regard to the draft of the evaluation results, another review is conducted prior to finalization. Also, in the case of appeals regarding recommendations for “deferral” and “unsuitable for accreditation”, further review by the Subcommittee for Appeals(Junior Colleges) is conducted to assure objectivity.

The Evaluation Report is submitted for approval of the Board of Directors.

Institutions are notified of finalized Evaluation Report containing Evaluation Results and a copy is submitted to the Minister, MEXT. In addition, the report is widely publicized on the JIHEE website.

7. Publication of Evaluation Results and Information Disclosure

(1) The Evaluation Report describing the content of “5-(2)-(3)” above is prepared and published.

(2) The Evaluation Report is submitted to the evaluated institution and the Minister, MEXT. In addition, the contents of evaluation are made available for public viewing through publications and on the JIHEE homepage. JIHEE will request that institutions undergoing evaluation post their Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports on the institution’s official homepage. By creating links between the evaluated institution and JIHEE websites, it will be possible to view the Self-Inspection and Evaluation Reports of each junior college.

(3) As an organization responsible to the public, JIHEE places great importance on the transparency and objectivity of its organizational structure, and in addition to providing public disclosure of the items regulated by Article 169-1 of the School Education Law Execution Regulations, JIHEE strives to provide any information in its possession regarding evaluation, to the best of its ability and in the most appropriate manner.

(4) Any requests submitted for disclosure of documents under the (sole) ownership of JIHEE shall be processed in accordance with JIHEE regulations. As a general rule, however, documents provided by institutions of higher education that are in the possession of JIHEE shall not be disclosed.

8. Improving the Evaluation System

JIHEE works regularly to improve its evaluation system.

In order to make improvements, JIHEE has developed a system that integrates the opinions of the institutions that underwent evaluation and the Evaluators and other parties involved in the process of evaluation, and the results of survey research activities conducted by JIHEE relating to junior college evaluation and higher education. In addition, with the assistance of affiliated organizations such as the Association of Private Universities in Japan and the Research Institute for Independent Higher Education, JIHEE requests the certified evaluations and accreditation of its organization when deemed necessary. Furthermore, at the same time, JIHEE solicits the opinions of the general public regarding its evaluation system for use as reference in pursuit of further improvement to develop the best system possible.

9. Evaluation Fees

Member institutions seeking evaluation are required to pay the following evaluation fees in accordance with the scale of the institution. In addition, consumption taxes are added to evaluation fees.

For a non-member junior college undergoing evaluation, the amount equivalent to membership fees for a period of 7 years will be added, in principle, to the above-listed evaluation fees.

10. Timing of Evaluation

(1) Evaluations are conducted once each year.

(2) Institutions seeking JIHEE evaluation shall submit application by the application deadline in accordance with the format provided for separately. Furthermore, when requests are received from an institution, JIHEE shall implement evaluation of the institution without delay, unless justifiable grounds for delay apply.

11. Publication and Submission of the Improvement Report, etc.

An institution that has been judged as “not suitable for accreditation” and that has received recommendations for improvement is required to prepare an “Improvement Report” to be made available to the general public.

Moreover, the institution should post the “Improvement Report” on its homepage within the period specified by JIHEE as well as submit the report to JIHEE.

During the period between deferral of accreditation to evaluation for continuation of accreditation (the period during which JIHEE certification and evaluation retain legal and social validity), the Committee for Evaluation and Board of Directors may decide to cancel accreditation or designate the time of the next evaluation if fraudulent reports or failure to disclose factual information, or other facts that violate social morality, are found to have existed during the process of evaluation or to be embedded in the basic information submitted to the JIHEE by an institution.